so there was that lemon party about muslims recently on bill maher's show. i still can't figure out which side is which. in fact, the arguments presented sound exactly the same to me, it's just that one of them was offered to a group of conversants by a scholar in the field and the other was a loud, barely relevant soliloquy delivered to an audience by an actor.
the only problem i had with anything that was said was that they were still talking about religion as though it were a thing that actually exists and not just an ignorant interpretation of neuropsychology by cavemen who didn't know where their thoughts came from.
so did i miss something? when did any party to the discussion suggest that we kill all the muslims or whatever? because i don't remember hearing the thing everyone appears to be arguing about right now. i heard one guy say that islam is damaging to those who identify with it, and then i heard the other guy hollering about how islam is damaging to those who identify with it. in what way are those two opinions different from one another? yeah, in the first one, the thing doing the damage is the religion and in the second, the thing doing the damage is society... because of the religion.
seems to me that the problem is religion. the islamic state has beheaded four western journalists. every day, a squadron of american drone pilots (who are forced to profess a belief in the christian god as a condition of their employment) kiss their crucifix pendants before larping toddlers to death on the other side of the planet for being brown. looking at the evidence, i know i certainly couldn't defend the claim that either of these religions are less violent than the other.
No comments:
Post a Comment